[WikiEN-l] Article on "Jews as a chosen people"

Tue Aug 24 21:04:38 UTC 2004

In a previous letter to this forum, I mentioned problems
that I was having with Danny on the article about [[Jews as
a chosen people]]. In response, Danny sent an e-mail:

> I claimed that the translation you gave of two verses is 
> interpretive and not literal. 

Well, if you had merely said that, there would have been no
problem. Instead, you did mention the above point, but only
in the context of a stream of ad homenim abuse. *That* was
the problem. Your intellectual disagreement, in of itself,
is fine and appropriate.

Danny writes:
> Oh, and "falsely claiming" is AH "

It is audacious to make such a claim, given the abuse you
sent my way. Ironically, there was no problem leading up to
this. I was making changes to another article in accord
with the constructive criticisms that Danny had given. I
even made a change to the article in question on precisely
the point Danny made. I also stepped back for four days and
gave him space to make any edits he wanted without any
interference. Few people here are that flexible, I'll tell
you that!

> I am not arguing the content of the article. 
> I am arguing the interpretation of a sentence. 
> However, if you must bring this up, you have given
> these sources with the added information of which 
> you like and which you dont. 

I have given views which I may happen to like, and also
views which I may happen not to like. And the text I added
is not the end of the article; further contributions and
edits from you and others are welcome. In fact, I stayed
away from this article (and all others) for the last four
days to give you a chance to do whatever you want.

I notice that Danny has made no edits, however, which
indicates that he doesn't have a big problem with the
content of the article.

> No, I am attacking '''you''' as ignorant. Do you
> actually speak Hebrew and understand the intricacies
> of its grammar, or are you just ranting? 

See, this is the big problem. I simply did NOT offer my own
translations, or commentary about translations. These all
came from Jewish scholars, all of whom are well versed in
Hebrew and Jewish theology. In response, Danny makes ad
homenim attacks towards me. Danny certainly knows Hebrew
well, but his irritation at other Hebrew speakers who
translate differently than him is palpable. He has every
right to disagree with them, and he certainly may offer a
good case. Just stop making it personal, and
misrepresenting me as the translator of anything. That is
dishonest.

Danny writes:
> You are arguing from authority, not from knowledge. 
> I do not respond to meaningless rhetoric. Perhaps if you 
> knew Hebrew grammar...

(A) The people who made these translations _do_ know Hebrew
grammar quite well.

(B) A recurring problem with Wikipedia, as Larry Sanger
repeatedly wrote, is that many of our contributors have
little respect for published authorities in the field, and
prefer their own POV to others POVs. When we demean
published authorities and hew to our own points-of-view,
this can damage the scholarship of the article, and lead to
edit wars. This is one of the primary reasons why Larry
Sanger is correctly worried about the future of Wikipedia
in general.

Fortunately, this problem hasn't occured for this article.
Danny has made no edits to this article at all in recent
months, and those changes he suggested have already been
made by me, to some extent. (And more can be made in the
future.)

Still, I find it disappointing that Danny uses the phrase
"meaningless rhetoric" when I backed up my position by
citing sources. Worse, no one here objected. When writing
NPOV articles, haven't we always encouraged people to move
away from personal research and translations, and cite
mainstream scholars in the field? (And of course, minorotiy
points of view can be cited as well.)  We should always be
vigilant towards those who say and do otherwise.

The good news is that Danny's rhetoric doesn't match his
actions in editing Wikipedia articles. When making edits to
articles, Danny does rely on established sources, and he is
well versed in many subjects. (Although he always assumes
that he is the only one...)

Still, his knowledge is why he is a valued contributor. I
know that such praise from me is neither desired or
appreciated by him, but it is true. I just wish he wouldn't
be so overtly arrogant to me.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 